I CERTAINLY would like the benefit of some review of the changed sections
before I complete my other action items for the draft.
For that purpose, I've asked Greg to post an "informal", interim PPDT draft
on the PWG web site. Once PPDT_r08 is available (by November 24 at the
latest), I'll ask Greg to remove this revision from the web site. It's not
officially part of the draft history---it's just the the PWG reflector has a
size limit on attachments and I wasn't able to mail the PDF to you directly
(I've been trying since last Friday!).
I'd like to draw your attention to one technical matter. In Durham, there was
some confusion about a mandatory feature directory and its contents. We made
it optional on the spot. I think this was hasty and does not reflect past
decisions of the working group; it certainly is not in accord with our
two-week rule. In the official PPDT_r08 I am going to restore the mandatory
feature directory BUT attempt to eliminate editorial inconsistencies in the
My action is not meant to endorse the concept of a mandatory feature
directory. It is just a question of process. Anyone who believes the feature
directory should be optional needs to produce a writtten proposal by November
I'd also like to draw your attention to an editorial problem. At one point
the group defined "function" to be synonomous with "unit architecture". At
the time we were in the midst of discussions about function discovery and the
like; the distinction made sense then. As I reread the document now, I think
the utility of this definition of function has been lost. I think that the
definition should be removed and "unit architecture" used in its place.
This isn't a simple editorial question. Please reread the model section and
scan the PDF for the ways and places where we use the word "function" before
you jump in on the reflector with your opinions. I'd like some guidance from
the working group---but considered guidance, please.
Congruent Software, Inc.
98 Colorado Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94707
(510) 527-3856 FAX